Arun Kumar v. Deputy Conservator of Forest

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner - Arun Kumar challenging the impugned order dated 11th November, 2022 passed by the Respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Central Forest Division, GNCTD, who is the Tree Officer under Section 9, by which a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been directed to be deposited for felling of various trees. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “ Now, therefore, Sh. Harinder (Mali), of Dept. of Horticulture, PWD, Sh. Arui[1] Kumar, Asst Director, Horticulture, PWD, Delhi DC Court, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93 are hereby directed to deposit Rs. 10,60,000/- (Ten Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) for felling of 13 full grown tree, heavily pruning 13 trees and 1 head back of 1 three, through demand draft in favour of DDO, Dy. Conservator of Forests (Central),.KNR, Delhi within 15 days of the receipt of this order.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforementioned impugned order was passed without hearing the Petitioner. It is further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, that he does not have entire record leading to the directions issued for deposit.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner was called for a hearing and had in fact, given a letter that he attended the hearing but was not given an opportunity to present his side. The said letter reads as under: “With regard to the subject referred to above, you are informed that I was present in the hearing of tree offence in your office on 16.09.2022 at 11:30 am and I signed the note sheet considering it as attendance, but tree offence was not done by me and I do not accept tree offence. I have not ordered any tree cutting and heavy pruning to anyone, nor I am involved in it in any way. As soon as the matter was brought to the notice of the Sub Division Office by the Section Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the gardener Harender by the undersigned. Gardner Harender gave explanation to undersigned. The undersigned informed the SHO, Police Station, G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi about this offence and it was sent for necessary action (copy enclosed). In this sequence, I was not given an opportunity to present my side and you passed a biased decision, which is against the principle of natural justice. Apart from this, there is also arrangement of security guards at the gates of the premises, where this forest offence has taken place, which is directly under the officers of the premises. In which the security officer of this premises is also responsible. Therefore, you are requested that a detailed investigation should be done in this matter from all the parties and witnesses, so that punitive action can be taken against the real culprit. It is, therefore, prayed to you that this case should be reviewed.”

5. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the impugned order is appealable to the appellate authority as per Section 14 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (hereinafter `Act’). He submits that the said authority is now functional.

6. Ld. Counsels for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused. As per Section 14 of the Act, appeal from the order of the tree officer lies to the Appellate Authority, within thirty days. The said provision reads:

14. Appeal.- (1) An appeal shall lie against the order or direction of the Tree Officer under sections 9, 10 and 11, to the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty days of passing the order or direction by the Tree Officer. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order or direction appealed against and a fee or rupees ten. (3) In disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The submission that the Petitioner was not heard appears to be not borne out from the record. The Petitioner was called for a hearing but as per his letter it is alleges that a proper opportunity to present his case was not given. The Petitioner is himself an Assistant Director at the Horticulture Division, in the PWD. Thus, the Petitioner was well aware of his obligations. In any event, it is his case that he was not aware of the tree cutting but the impugned order records that 13 fully grown trees were felled without any permission. From a reading of the impugned order it clearly appears that the Petitioner and the concerned gardener agreed for compounding of the offence under Section 21 of the Act. Be that as it may, since the stand of the Petitioner is that he is not possession of all the records/documents and that he was not given a hearing, the following directions are issued:

(i) The Petitioner is permitted to approach the appellate authority under the Act, to challenge the impugned order dated 11th November,

2022.

(ii) In order to enable the filing of the appeal, the Petitioner may be supplied all the relevant records and the material which were the basis of the impugned order within two weeks.

(iii) The said appeal if filed by 10th January, 2023 shall not be dismissed due to delay, if any.

7. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of. The present order shall not be construed as an opinion on merits. The appeal shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 7, 2022/dj/kt